In the first half of 2025, Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Protection Organizations focused on hot and difficult issues in the consumer sector, handling various consumer complaints and effectively deterring illegal activities that infringe on consumer rights, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and creating a safer and more secure consumer environment. The Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Protection Committee released a number of typical cases, including a lawsuit involving fraud in used car transactions.
Case
Used car transaction fraud lawsuit
Case Summary
In April 2024, Ms. Jia saw a used car of a certain brand being sold by a company on an app. The mileage displayed on the car's odometer was 76,934 kilometers. The operator explicitly stated in a WeChat conversation that the mileage on the vehicle's odometer was real and could not be tampered with. The two parties reached a deal by mailing a paper contract, transferring money online, and shipping the vehicle. The transaction price was 248,000 yuan, and the vehicle transportation fee was 2,300 yuan. After Ms. Jia sent the car for inspection, she discovered that the mileage had reached 181,000 kilometers as of January 13, 2024. Ms. Jia believed the company had engaged in fraud and demanded a refund and compensation. After unsuccessful communication with the company, Ms. Jia filed a complaint with the Xinbei District Consumer Association of Changzhou City.
Processing process and results
After investigation by the Xinbei District Consumer Association and the Market Supervision Bureau of Changzhou City, the company was found to have engaged in meter fraudulent activity and was subsequently penalized by the market supervision department. However, the two parties have yet to reach an agreement on compensation. To help protect consumer rights, the "Li Hui Studio" of the Xinbei District Consumer Association of Changzhou City actively assisted the consumer in collecting evidence and arranged for staff to represent Ms. Jia in the lawsuit. The court ultimately ruled in her favor, assigning joint liability to the defendant company and its shareholders under a "refund one, compensate one" policy. Ms. Jia received a total of 498,000 yuan in compensation, with the defendant covering the litigation costs.
Case Analysis
In this case, the operator falsified the mileage of a used car before selling it and made false promises to consumers, constituting fraud. According to Article 55 of the Consumer Protection Law, if a business operator engages in fraudulent behavior, the consumer may seek compensation equal to three times the purchase price of the product, meaning the company should compensate the consumer for the vehicle. However, considering the company's affordability, Ms. Jia decided to request a "one-for-one refund" and was granted. In this lawsuit, staff from the Consumer Association directly represented the consumer, effectively reducing the cost of defending her rights.
The remaining cases are:
1
Case
Online consumption disputes involving minors
Case Summary
In April 2025, Ms. Sun filed a complaint with the Nanjing Qinhuai District Consumer Association, alleging that her 14-year-old daughter, while taking an online course on her phone, had, without her knowledge, added the contact information of a cosmetics salesperson through an online platform. She then made multiple purchases of perfume, lipstick, body lotion, and other products, totaling over 19,000 yuan, and then deleted the payment records. Upon discovering the issue, Ms. Sun contacted the cosmetics company requesting a return and refund, but was refused.
Processing process and results
Verification revealed that the minor purchased the relevant cosmetics six times between March and April of this year, never mentioning his age. He used adult language, such as "I'll contact you after get off work," "I'll get my salary on April 9th," and "a birthday present for my 16-year-old sister." Due to his frequent purchases, sales staff actively advised him to be more prudent. Some of the products had already been opened and used. Consumer Association staff proposed a mediation plan: "All unopened products that are not eligible for resale will be returned, while used products will not be returned," which both parties agreed to.
Case Analysis
According to Articles 19 and 145 of the Civil Code, minors over the age of eight are considered persons with limited civil capacity. Civil acts performed by them require the consent or ratification of their legal representatives to be valid, except for acts that purely profit or are appropriate to their age and intelligence. Furthermore, Article 157 of the Civil Code provides that invalid civil acts are void ab initio, and the property obtained by the actor through such acts must be returned, subject to comprehensive consideration of factors such as product damage and the fault of both parties. This case strikes a balance between the invalid expression of a minor's large-scale purchase that is disproportionate to his or her age and intelligence, the negligence of the minor's guardian, and the merchant's actual product damage, resulting in a reasonable solution.
2
Case
Disputes over refunds for guaranteed college entrance exam scores training
Case Summary
In June 2025, the Xuzhou Quanshan District Consumer Association received a complaint from a consumer, Mr. Liu, alleging he had signed a "Gaokao score guarantee agreement" with a training institution in the district. The institution provided guaranteed score training for Gaokao students, promising a minimum score increase of 5 points in one subject and 20 points in three subjects. Enroll in one course and get two free, for a tuition fee of 8,980 yuan. After three classes, the student, citing communication problems with the teacher, refused to continue. After his request for a refund was unsuccessful, he sought help.
Processing process and results
Staff from the Consumer Association conducted an investigation alongside law enforcement officers from the Market Supervision Bureau. It was discovered that the "Gaokao Score Guarantee Agreement" signed between the institution and consumer Mr. Liu stipulated that Party B could not withdraw from the course without cause after signing the agreement, and that if Party B withdrew, Party A would deduct all fees. The training institution argued that the contract had already been signed and that Party B had unilaterally breached it, without Party A's fault, and therefore refused to refund the fees. The consumer, however, argued that the institution's late class times, the child's low interest in the training content, the teacher's inability to answer questions promptly, and that he had only attended three classes and received seven days' worth of courseware, had no negative impact on the institution. After mediation, the training institution refunded the consumer 80% of the tuition, totaling 7,184 yuan, and the consumer expressed satisfaction.
Case Analysis
In this case, the operator used absolute terms such as "guaranteed score increase" and "buy one get two free" to attract consumers, commercializing educational outcomes. The clause in the agreement, "No withdrawal without cause, otherwise all fees will be deducted," unilaterally deprived consumers of the right to terminate the contract, violating Article 497 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that "standard clauses excluding the other party's main rights are invalid." It also violates Article 26 of the Consumer Protection Law, which prohibits operators from using standard clauses to exclude or restrict consumer rights, reduce or exempt operators from liability, or increase consumer liability, thereby unfairly and unreasonably affecting consumers. The operator provided only three courses but refused to refund the full amount of 8,980 yuan, violating the principle of fair trade and constituting an illegal act under Article 12 of the Measures for the Punishment of Acts Infringing Consumer Rights, which stipulates that "exempting or partially exempting operators from the obligation to refund the purchase price and service fees for goods or services provided."
3
Case
Disputes over discrepancies between whole wood customization and the agreement
Case Summary
In April 2025, Ms. Wang complained to the Suzhou Zhangjiagang Consumer Rights Protection Committee that she had signed a whole wood customization contract with a whole wood customization merchant in July 2024 for a total price of 180,000 yuan. During the contract signing process, Ms. Wang repeatedly confirmed the material of the cabinet panels with the merchant and specifically stipulated the brand and panel in the contract. Based on her trust in the merchant, Ms. Wang paid 150,000 yuan for the goods. However, during the acceptance inspection, Ms. Wang found that the texture and grain of the panels were significantly different from the samples displayed by the merchant, and there were no import marks or relevant certifications. Ms. Wang immediately contacted the merchant and negotiated with it on rectification and compensation matters many times, but all ended in failure.
Processing process and results
The Zhangjiagang Consumer Rights Protection Committee and the Market Supervision Bureau jointly initiated an investigation procedure. After reviewing the contract, payment receipts and other materials provided by the consumer, they further checked the merchant's production and purchase records and found that the merchant did not mark "imported panels" as per the contract when placing an order with the manufacturer. With the consent of both parties, law enforcement officers contacted and commissioned the domestic agent of the above-mentioned brand panels to conduct panel identification, confirming that the cabinet panels involved were domestic European particleboards, not the agreed brand imported OSB panels. After mediation, the two parties reached a mediation agreement: all cabinet panels will be replaced with imported OSB panels, part of the payment totaling 80,000 yuan will be refunded within 15 working days, and an additional compensation of 50,000 yuan will be paid. Taking into account that the merchant has actively assumed the liability for compensation, the Market Supervision Bureau imposed a lighter penalty on its illegal behavior, issued a warning and fined 30,000 yuan, and urged it to standardize its operations.
Case Analysis
This is a typical consumer dispute arising from a merchant's failure to provide goods as agreed in the contract. Article 12 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Law stipulates that businesses that make quality promises about goods must fulfill those promises to consumers. In this case, the merchant, in pursuit of higher profits, arbitrarily substituted materials. This behavior violated the contractual agreement with the consumer and constituted a breach of contract.
4
Case
Disputes over excessive takeaway fees
Case Summary
In June 2025, the Qingjiangpu District Consumer Rights Protection Committee of Huai'an City received a complaint from a consumer, Mr. Zhu, who ordered three items from a food delivery platform: one serving of hot braised dried tofu, for which he paid 0.56 yuan for the food and 0.5 yuan for packaging; one box of summer beverage, for which he paid 0.88 yuan for the food and 0.5 yuan for packaging; and one serving of signature noodles with soybean paste, for which he paid 9.35 yuan for the food and 0.5 yuan for packaging. Upon receiving the items, he found they were placed in a single plastic bag. The merchant charged for packaging all three items, but did not provide the packaging service. Mr. Zhu requested a refund and compensation, but after reaching an unsuccessful agreement, he filed a complaint seeking assistance.
Processing process and results
Upon receiving the complaint, staff immediately conducted an investigation and verification. It turned out that the merchant in question had not indicated a standard packaging fee on the food delivery platform. Upon delivery, three items were packed in a single plastic bag, and the receipt indicated a three-packing fee. Consumer Protection Committee staff negotiated with the store manager and explained the Consumer Protection Law and the Measures for the Punishment of Acts Infringing Consumer Rights to the merchant. Ultimately, the merchant agreed to refund the overcharged 1 yuan for food packaging, compensate the consumer 100 yuan, and contact the food delivery platform to reset the packaging fee. The consumer expressed satisfaction.
Case Analysis
Article 8 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates that consumers have the right to know the true circumstances of the goods they purchase, use, or services they receive, which is known as the right to know. Article 9 also stipulates that consumers have the right to independently choose goods or services. In this case, the merchant charged a package fee for three food items, but actually packaged all three items together, overcharging for the package, and failing to inform consumers of the package fee standards in advance. This behavior violated consumers' rights to know and to choose independently.
5
Case
Dispute over baby injury caused by improper care by confinement nanny
Case Summary
In January 2025, consumers Mr. and Mrs. Wang hired a confinement nanny, Ms. Yang, through a housekeeping service in Sheyang County, Yancheng City, to care for their newborn. During the service, Ms. Yang's improper handling resulted in inflammation and hyperplasia of the baby's navel. After repeated attempts to negotiate compensation with the housekeeping service, the couple filed a complaint with the Sheyang County Consumer Rights Protection Committee, demanding protection of their legal rights.
Processing process and results
During the investigation, the head of the domestic service department involved argued that the postpartum nanny, Yang, was an informal employee, an "unpaid helper," and had not received any agency fees, and that the service department should not be held responsible. After visiting health authorities and consulting with experts, the Consumer Protection Committee confirmed a direct link between the baby's navel inflammation and hyperplasia and Yang's improper care. Fortunately, the hyperplasia was reversible and had no long-term health impact. The investigation determined that Yang's nursing care was negligent and she bears direct responsibility. The service department, along with Mr. and Mrs. Wang and Ms. Yang, had formed a substantial "intermediary service contract relationship." If they cannot prove they fulfilled their obligation to carefully vet service personnel, they must bear liability for their mistakes. Ultimately, the three parties reached a settlement agreement, with the service department providing a one-time compensation of 5,000 yuan to Mr. and Mrs. Wang, and the domestic service department and Ms. Yang, the postpartum nanny, to negotiate their respective responsibilities.
Case Analysis
Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates that consumers have the right to be protected from personal and property safety when purchasing, using goods, and receiving services. Consumers have the right to require that goods and services provided by business operators meet requirements for protecting personal and property safety. Article 40, paragraph 3, stipulates that if a consumer's legitimate rights and interests are harmed while receiving services, they may seek compensation from the service provider. In this case, although the domestic service department did not sign a formal contract with the consumer or charge an agency fee, and even claimed to be providing "friendly assistance," its proactive introduction, advance payment of deposits, and participation in dispute resolution constituted substantive elements of the service contract and established an "intermediary service contract relationship." As the service provider, Yang bears direct liability for the damage to the baby's health caused by negligent nursing care. As the intermediary, if the service department cannot prove that it fulfilled its obligation to carefully review the qualifications and capabilities of the service personnel, it must bear compensation liability for Yang's fault.
6
Case
Consumer disputes over flower reservation shortages
Case Summary
In May 2025, the Consumer Association of Hanjiang District, Yangzhou City received a complaint that a consumer, Ms. Li, booked a bouquet of flowers at a flower shop in Hanjiang District through the platform, paid 68 yuan, and asked the store to deliver the flowers to her door the next day. On the afternoon of the day of ordering the flowers, the platform customer service contacted the consumer and suggested a refund on the grounds of out of stock. Ms. Li found that the merchant interface was still on sale and the price was adjusted to 280 yuan, and she did not agree to a refund. In the evening, the customer service asked for a refund again, but Ms. Li still refused. The next day, when Ms. Li checked the service record, she found that the system showed that the goods had been received, but she had not received the flowers. Subsequently, Ms. Li inquired with the platform and the store, but received no satisfactory response. After negotiations, Ms. Li's problem was not resolved smoothly, so she sought help from the Consumer Association and requested a refund of the purchase amount and compensation of 280 yuan.
Processing process and results
After receiving the complaint, the Yangzhou Hanjiang District Consumer Association contacted the florist's manager, who explained that the flowers were lost by the courier and stated that they had held the courier responsible through the platform. The only refund available to the consumer was a refund, with no compensation offered. The Consumer Association staff then contacted the platform's customer service, advising them to properly handle Ms. Li's complaint. After negotiation and mediation, the platform offered a solution: the florist would refund Ms. Li the 68 yuan purchase price plus a 30 yuan compensation, and the platform would compensate the consumer 68 yuan. Ms. Li agreed.
Case Analysis
Article 10 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates that consumers have the right to fair trade. Article 20 stipulates that businesses must provide consumers with truthful and comprehensive information on the quality, performance, use, and expiration date of goods or services, and must not make false or misleading claims. In this case, the business operator failed to deliver the bouquets on time and failed to accurately and fully inform consumers of the true circumstances during the order return process, violating consumers' rights to fair trade and the right to be informed.
7
Case
“Cashback for positive reviews” induces consumer disputes
Case Summary
In April 2025, Ms. Zhang purchased a solid wooden bed from a company's online store. Upon receiving it, she discovered numerous quality issues. However, the product received mostly positive reviews, which the actual product did not match. Furthermore, the merchant included a bonus cashback card with the product, suspecting it was a fraudulent attempt to induce purchases. Ms. Zhang requested a refund and asked the merchant to cover the return shipping costs. After unsuccessful communication, she filed a complaint with the Caiji Consumer Rights Protection Complaint Station of the Sucheng District Consumer Rights Protection Committee of Suqian City.
Processing process and results
After receiving the complaint, staff at the complaint station investigated and verified that the online store had designed and commissioned a printing shop to produce 1,500 "good review cashback cards" earlier this year. These cards were printed with slogans such as "5-star reviews with 50 or more words will earn you 5 yuan, and follow-up reviews will earn you another 5 yuan." During this period, the store distributed over 300 "good review cashback cards." During the furniture sales process, the store mailed these "good review cashback cards" to consumers, inducing them to leave positive reviews, thereby increasing the number of positive reviews and attracting purchases. Verification revealed that 63 consumers received red envelopes from the online store and then left false positive reviews for the products. After mediation, the online store agreed to refund returns and cover return shipping costs, which Ms. Zhang expressed satisfaction with.
Case Analysis
Articles 20 and 45 of the Consumer Protection Law stipulate that businesses shall not engage in false or misleading advertising. If a consumer's legitimate rights and interests are harmed due to a business operator using false advertising or other false promotional methods to provide goods or services, they may seek compensation from the business operator. Article 6, paragraph 4 of the Measures for the Punishment of Acts Infringing Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that businesses shall not engage in deceptive sales inducements through fabricated transactions, falsely stated transaction volumes, false reviews, or hiring others. Article 9, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Interim Provisions on Online Anti-Unfair Competition stipulates that businesses shall not use cashback, red envelopes, coupons, or other means to induce users to engage in interactive behaviors such as designated positive reviews, likes, and targeted voting. Merchants manipulating product reviews through unfair means such as "cashback for fake positive reviews" and "fake transactions" not only undermines fair competition in the market but also infringes on consumers' right to know and right to choose.
8
Case
Disputes over damaged goods at collection points
Case Summary
In January 2025, Mr. Chen purchased a storage-type electric water heater online for 628 yuan, with the order agreed to home delivery. Because he was traveling, Mr. Chen agreed to have the courier drop the water heater off at a designated pickup location. The next day, when he went to pick it up, he discovered it had burned and damaged. He subsequently complained to the platform, the courier, and the operator, demanding they cover his losses, but all requests were rejected. Mr. Chen then filed a complaint with the Suzhou Industrial Park Consumer Rights Protection Committee, demanding the operator cover his losses.
Processing process and results
An investigation revealed that the courier company and the platform were owned by the same company, and that the collection point was a temporary storage facility provided by the small supermarket as a courtesy. During mediation, the operator argued that the collection point was responsible, arguing that the goods had no quality issues and that damage occurred at the collection point. The operator also argued that the courier company should also bear responsibility for not fulfilling its "home delivery" obligation as stipulated in the order. Furthermore, the platform argued that the goods had already been delivered and that there was no responsibility. The collection point also denied liability, arguing that it had provided the location as a courtesy and had no obligation to store the goods. Taking all of this into account, the key question in this case is whether the collection point had a duty of care and the extent to which it fulfilled it. Given that the electric water heater was brand new and non-flammable, the likelihood of spontaneous combustion when unpowered was extremely low, suggesting that external factors were more likely to have caused the combustion. However, in this case, the collection point was a temporary storage facility provided free of charge by the supermarket for the courier. Without definitive evidence of intent or gross negligence, it would be unfair to hold the courier responsible for the losses. Ultimately, after consultation with the operator and the courier company, the courier company was held liable for the consumer's losses.
Case Analysis
According to Articles 26, 27, and 28 of the "Measures for the Administration of the Express Delivery Market," express delivery companies must establish appropriate management systems and work processes to ensure the safety of express parcels. In this case, although the express delivery company obtained the consumer's consent, it temporarily stored the electric water heater at a convenience store that had no obligation to collect and store the parcel. Therefore, the company should have been aware of the possibility of loss or damage. Furthermore, the express delivery company failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the delivery status of the electric water heater at the collection point, and therefore bears primary responsibility.
(Original title: "A woman who bought a used car for 250,000 yuan and sold it with 180,000 kilometers instead of 70,000 kilometers received a 500,000 yuan compensation!")